In this post, we revisit our discussion from December 1, 2017 of Cox v. Evansville Police Department after the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and held that the common-carrier exception does not apply to sexual assaults by on-duty police officers but that such attacks may be sufficiently within the scope of employment that the general doctrine of respondeat superior provides liability for police departments.

Today, we look at the propriety of adjudicating personal injury cases on the basis of a contributory negligence defense at summary judgment through the lens of the new decision in Gonzalez v. Ritz. We also examine the burden on a movant to establish that evidence would certainly not be admissible at trial in order to exclude it at summary judgment.

Today we look at the scenarios in which a claim can proceed despite not timely filing a notice of tort claim under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. We also look at the formerly puzzling question of the proper standard of review where a plaintiff's claim is tossed at summary judgment for failure to file an ITCA notice.

In this week's discussion, we look at a very interesting series of topics occasioned by a $32.5 million verdict for a passenger in a car, which slid off a highway and struck a semi that had slid off over an hour before.

This week we look at whether the violation of a statute designed to protect a pedestrian by requiring him to walk against the flow of traffic can constitute contributory negligence at summary judgment when the alternative would have been to cross a busy road without a crosswalk.

This installment focuses on the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Lyons v. Richmond Community School Corporation that examined the application of fraudulent concealment and the discovery rule to the Indiana Tort Claims Act and found that the parents of a severely disabled student who was allowed to choke to death on food at her school could have their day in court.

This week's discussion looks to a case following from a shooting at a school in Martinsville, Indiana and explores the ability of a public school to utilize discretionary function immunity under Indiana Tort Claim's Act as well as the duty of a school to protect its students' safety.

This week we take a look at the Indiana Supreme Court case Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC v. National Trust Insurance Company that clarified confusing Indiana sovereign immunity law to find that a private water company working under contract for the City of Indianapolis could be liable for failing to maintain fire hydrants that resulted in a total loss of a restaurant during a fire.

This first of two posts today addresses the Indiana Supreme Court decision to reinstate the case in Schoettmer v. Wright despite the plaintiffs having failed to file proper timely notice under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) because there was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to prevent the defendants from avoiding liability under the ITCA.

In this installment we look at the recent Indiana Supreme Court decision in City of Indianapolis v. Buschman, which found that a tort claim notice was not defective so as to bar a claim for personal injuries despite specifically stating that there were "No injuries."